Interim stay on legislation is exceptional: courts must find apparent unconstitutionality, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and public interest.

Interim restraint on the operation of legislation or subordinate legislation is an exceptional remedy, and courts should preserve the presumption of constitutional validity until the law is finally struck down. Such relief is warranted only when the challenge shows apparent unconstitutionality and the balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and public interest clearly favour suspension. The Court noted that the impugned interim stay orders were made without applying these settled tests, and therefore such restraint was not justified and was liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in granting interim stay of the operation of statutory rules framed under a legislative enactment challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis: Interim restraint against the operation of legislation or subordinate legislation is an exceptional remedy. The presumption of constitutional validity continues until the law is finally struck down, and courts are expected to exercise great caution before suspending its operation at an interlocutory stage. Such relief is justified only where the enactment or rules appear ex facie unconstitutional and the factors of balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and public interest clearly support interim protection. The impugned orders were passed without applying these settled parameters.

Conclusion: The interim stay orders were not justified and were liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts should not ordinarily stay the operation of legislation or rules at an interim stage unless the challenge discloses apparent unconstitutionality and the balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and public interest all favour such restraint.

---